Christianity - History's Greatest Scam

I totally agree that we should allow the teaching of "religion" - not any specific one either: the majority of both mono and poly - but in an
entirely secular, non-biased environment. Even though that is what these people claim to want as well, in most cases they are trying to deceive us and
sneak in their dogma.

Near the end the caller finds the supposed curriculum for this "religious studies" course and sure enough "taught as an alternative theory to
evolution" or something like that. I don't doubt there are those that do wish it to be taught from a philosophical standpoint, and don't
intend to force it on anyone, but the problem, as I see it, is religion is so subjective to the individual - while some wish it as a simple elective
option, others are going to try and shove it down kids throats. If we set a precedent allowing it to appease one group, all of a sudden every other
fundamentalist group and denomination is going to be up in arms as well.
Also, as you try to cling to this notion "evolution" is flawed, the fact they DON'T teach about the gaps explains exactly why evolution is
part of science and religion isn't. No scientist would ever claim such arrogance, to know what goes in that gap without having any backing or
evidence to support such a claim. These gaps you speak of don't really exist either - the fossil record is broad enough and diverse enough (it is
amazing we even managed to find transitional fossils, if you understand the process of how to make one) that it shows us time and time again where and
when evolution fits in. Evolution is also a fact - it makes predictions that have been observed and verified. Does "Creation
Science" do that? No way in hell...
ID is a joke by the way, calling yourself a "creation scientist" is a kin to to a janitor calling himself "sanitation engineer".
ID is rejected by every major scientific body - except those of a faith base ofcourse - because all it does is pretend to do valid research and then
when as you say, a gap or a unknown variable comes along, they posit god as the reason or explanation.
ID does not equal or even come close to a scientific theory.
Back to your original point - I would gladly welcome a religious studies option. It goes against the constitution to make it mandatory, and I don't
think you should be allowed to force kids to learn that stuff.
I even went to a Catholic high school, where I took religion class from grade 7 to 11. Funny thing ofcourse, they call it "Religion/CAPP" - career
and personal planning - but we did exactly 2 weeks of CAPP and 3.5 months of Religion. As for looking at all faiths, we studied 4 or 5 different
dogmas - each for about a week - then spent the remainder learning about why Jesus and the bible are true.
That is why these religious folk can not be trusted. No matter what they say, personal bias will always manifest, and in the end, they will want kids
to believe what they do. Scam artists...

The teaching of the Bible is very clear. What often happens when people go to the Bible though is that they bring their churches traditions to it and
try to fit them into it. That basically is why there are 38,000 denominations. People didn't like another's traditions, left that church, and
started their own—with no regard for what the Bible may have to say.

If the Bible is clear, then there should be less number of denominations. How hard is that to understand?

Rather, I said that you're understanding of Totakeke being "right" and "his faith" was faulty.

I think you need to re read the thread a bit- I'm not the only to have noticed Tota's need to be right
I even offered the olive branch- saying Tota is entitled to think what he (or she, lol) thinks and I will think what I think- to this he offered up
more dogma

Being snippy.

I see

Just like some would say about Catholics.

The 'some' being you in your last post. But, as a whole, it is hard to say that Catholics are Christian

I try daily though to try and bridge that divide. Religion needn't separate us.

Are you joking?

You just told me parts of christianity aren't christian- the division starts with yourself proclaiming just who are true christians- what hope have
other religions got when you don't even accept your own?

I agree with this wholeheartedly. The Christian movement that essentially has been trying to force America to be the way that they want has been a
bad thing. Mainly because they're trying to force the nation to do things that the majority of the people don't want. Or they've gone about
getting their views out in such a bad way. The Apostle Paul teaches that "we're not citizens of this world", meaning that we should be concerned
about heavenly thing, going on to say that we're ambassadors of Christ. I think that many of the politically active Christian groups have forgotten
about this because, one, they're trying to make the Earth today like they're expecting it to be in the future [by forcing people to comply with
them] and, two, as an "ambassador" of Christ in this world, they should be concerned with representing him to the world. Which sometimes fails to
happen. In addition to that, an ambassador doesn't interfere with the affairs of the country that they're in. Likewise, Christians shouldn't, in
my opinion, get too involved with the politicking of the world.

Know what I mean? Hope my thought makes sense--this is a view of mine that I recently adopted and I've become quite passionate about it since I
realized the error in my former way.

You just told me parts of christianity aren't christian- the division starts with yourself proclaiming just who are true christians- what hope
have other religions got when you don't even accept your own?

In the name of harmony I shouldn't accept false and heretical teaching. That makes no sense as it does not one any good. On that note, I would
accept any Catholic that believes what the Bible, not tradition that contradicts the Bible, says. In general, the Church of Rome's doctrine often
goes against Scripture, which is said to be all that we need. Specifically though, due to the nature of the Roman Catholic Church, any church can
reject "official" church doctrine [or at least downplay it]. They can even add to the official church doctrine. That is why in Haiti Catholicism
is merged with Voodooism.

But, as you said before, just because someone says they're Christian doesn't make it so. Their doctrine says a lot.

You just told me parts of christianity aren't christian- the division starts with yourself proclaiming just who are true christians- what hope
have other religions got when you don't even accept your own?

In the name of harmony I shouldn't accept false and heretical teaching. That makes no sense as it does not one any good. On that note, I would
accept any Catholic that believes what the Bible, not tradition that contradicts the Bible, says. In general, the Church of Rome's doctrine often
goes against Scripture, which is said to be all that we need. Specifically though, due to the nature of the Roman Catholic Church, any church can
reject "official" church doctrine [or at least downplay it]. They can even add to the official church doctrine. That is why in Haiti Catholicism
is merged with Voodooism.

But, as you said before, just because someone says they're Christian doesn't make it so. Their doctrine says a lot.

Instead of all the words why not just come out and directly say Catholics aren't christians? that is obviously what you think- I really don't see
how that is building any sort of a bridge- to me that's says you think your religion is right and the Catholic church is wrong- that is dividing not
uniting.

Where did I say 'just because someone says they're christian doesn't make it so?

Also, you seem to have missed the bit in my last post where I asked you what question I asked?

Instead of all the words why not just come out and directly say Catholics aren't christians?

I haven't come out and said that because...it's not what I believe.

There are Catholics within the Catholic Church that truly are Christian. There are others that aren't. What is meaned by this is that they've
trusted in Christ alone as the way of salvation, like the Bible teaches. And, like I said, I should accept people that believe and follow
obviously false teaching just for the sake of putting up a "united Christian facade" for the world.

Where did I say 'just because someone says they're christian doesn't make it so?

You made a reference to the Mormons and JWs thinking that they're Christian.

Also, you seem to have missed the bit in my last post where I asked you what question I asked?

What are you talking about? The "Are you joking?" question?

ETA--ah, got it, read your question wrong. I guess it wasn't so much a "question" that you asked but more that it didn't seem that you quite
understood what Totakeke was trying to say. I felt that I could be of service because, I understood where he was going.

You made a reference to the Mormons and JWs thinking that they're Christian.

I was paraphrasing what you said just as it's hard to say that Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are Christian.
- nowhere did I say "just because someone says they're christian doesn't make it so"- to the contrary that is what YOU are saying, not me

I haven't come out and said that because...it's not what I believe.

lol, okay I must have read this all wrong

In the name of harmony I shouldn't accept false and heretical teaching. That makes no sense as it does not one any good. On that note, I would
accept any Catholic that believes what the Bible, not tradition that contradicts the Bible, says. In general, the Church of Rome's doctrine often
goes against Scripture, which is said to be all that we need. Specifically though, due to the nature of the Roman Catholic Church, any church can
reject "official" church doctrine [or at least downplay it]. They can even add to the official church doctrine. That is why in Haiti Catholicism is
merged with Voodooism.

Silly me! sounds to me like you're saying the Catholic church is false and their teachings are heresy- that their church goes against scripture and
that it rejects "official" doctrine and even that they add bits on- what a duffer I am

Some time I wish ATS boards were like the youtube comments, where I can give a comment the thumbs DOWN!!!

How does that expression go, the devil is in the details?

Let me illustrate, is the following image a picture of the same man or two different men?

Of course your going to say "thats just two different pictures of Michael Jackson, its the same guy?"

But how can that be? They are wearing different clothes, they have different hair, they have different skin color, they are each in a different place,
how can they be the same person?

Whenever I try to tell people of the similarities between Jesus and other solar messiahs I always get the same responses "But Jesus was born here, he
had different disciples, his mother was Mary, not (insert random Virgin Deity), he had a beard".

People always argue over the little difference and ignore the very big striking similarities. ie born of a virgin on the 25th of December under a
start in the east with the three wise men or three kings or three Priests following said star and dying fro three days and then resurrecting on the
fourth day.

What ever small differences they have they always share these attributes. So when ever I hear the religious types say "Ahh, but Jesus was
different...", I call shenanigans, its the same guy, just with a beard and a robe instead of a headdress and a loin cloth.

Originally posted by makinho21
I'd like to start off with a quote from David Hume - with regards to the so-called immaculate conception
"What is more likely? That the whole natural order be suspended? Or that a Jewish minx should tell a lie?"
I think this basically sums up the moronic origins of Christianity - it has no weight or factual backing. It is clearly an amalgamation of earlier
polytheistic religions (specifically Egyptian worship of Ra) and the virgin birth is not something unique - in fact countless other older tales tell
of a similar occurrence. There is nothing original or memorable about Christianity, and it spreads immoral teachings, hidden like a coiled serpent,
within it's stupid book. Vicarious redemption? What kind of nonsense is this: www.youtube.com...
Hitchens' explains this disgusting concept very well. Who would dare claim to be able to wash away your sins - your sins that have been committed
against others. What selfish backwards thinking is this? Garbage is all I can say....absolute garbage

[edit on 24-7-2009 by makinho21]

1.You need to accept the fact you are a sinner.
2.The wages of sin is death.
3.You have a sin debt you can't pay.
4.Jesus paid that sin debt on the cross!
5.Jesus was buried and spent three days and nights in hell for you!
6.God raised Jesus from the dead.
7.Jesus is now in heaven by the Father's right hand.
8.Jesus is coming back real soon...are you saved yet???
Time is running out and we all need to know whom we will serve,God
or satan,you get to choose!!

Originally posted by makinho21
I'd like to start off with a quote from David Hume - with regards to the so-called immaculate conception
"What is more likely? That the whole natural order be suspended? Or that a Jewish minx should tell a lie?"
I think this basically sums up the moronic origins of Christianity - it has no weight or factual backing. It is clearly an amalgamation of earlier
polytheistic religions (specifically Egyptian worship of Ra) and the virgin birth is not something unique - in fact countless other older tales tell
of a similar occurrence. There is nothing original or memorable about Christianity, and it spreads immoral teachings, hidden like a coiled serpent,
within it's stupid book. Vicarious redemption? What kind of nonsense is this: www.youtube.com...
Hitchens' explains this disgusting concept very well. Who would dare claim to be able to wash away your sins - your sins that have been committed
against others. What selfish backwards thinking is this? Garbage is all I can say....absolute garbage

[edit on 24-7-2009 by makinho21]

1.You need to accept the fact you are a sinner.
2.The wages of sin is death.
3.You have a sin debt you can't pay.
4.Jesus paid that sin debt on the cross!
5.Jesus was buried and spent three days and nights in hell for you!
6.God raised Jesus from the dead.
7.Jesus is now in heaven by the Father's right hand.
8.Jesus is coming back real soon...are you saved yet???
Time is running out and we all need to know whom we will serve,God
or satan,you get to choose!!

Whoa - hold up there.
This is basically the type of spittle that compelled me to make this thread.
You aren't really doing your religion/dogma much of a favor pushing it onto other people - that is why it is shrinking at a considerable rate.
Why am I a sinner? Please...tell me.
What kind of bizarre world is it if we can simply "pay off" our responsibilities.
This is the number one problem with Jesus and Christianity - vicarious redemption.
What a disgusting and shameful teaching, in my opinion, one in which mistakes are never learned from, and wrong-doings are never made up for.
Sickening really, how you people don't even clue into what you are preaching.
Also, I believe Jesus was in hell for approximately 36 hours, not really 3 days and nights....
I am pretty sure "Jesus is coming back, really soon" has been thrown at "sinners" for almost 2000 years....really soon indeed.

Based on god's kill count compared to Satan (according to the bible), I'd side with god for sure - he blows Satan out of the water for quantity! I
think its like...2.17 million to 2. Oh damn Satan, you lose again! www.youtube.com...

What's most amusing is that the chief Christian god, "Father", is also an amalgamation of pagan gods. Particularly the Genesis "God", who was
angry with humanity for shedding their ignorance. That story is derived mostly from Sumerian mythology, in which a group of heavenly beings were said
to have created humans to be their servants, making them without conscience so they would be blind to their own enslavement. The Annunaki, as they
were called, were incredibly vain and warlike. They demanded to be worshiped and were nothing short of tyrannical. I would "garden paradise" as a
kind of propaganda. Only in total ignorance can one find bliss in slavery, but humanity did for a long time until they were liberated by another group
who were once slaves to the Annunaki, who called themselves the Brotherhood of the Serpent.

Genesis was written with a very obvious bias. If any of you recall, in reference to the Tree of Life, God says he fears man will "become like us".
That's right, he refers to himself in the plural. The Tree of Life is a real concept. You can look it up. It's sometimes called the Path of the
Flame Sword and it leads to a spiritual empowerment that is so great, it transforms those who follow it into masters of perception.

Before there were "gods", there were the Annunaki, and they were never called "gods". They were described as having came down from the heavens,
but that literally meant the sky to ancient people. A loose translation of the word "Annunaki" would be "Those from the sky". The Rib Woman was
created to heal Enki of a deathly illness by the same goddess who gave it to him, along with eight others for the tainted plants Enki ate. In
Sumerian, "rib" and "life" are the same word. It's a pun. Enki was more like Prometheus, though he is somewhat equivalent to "Adam". He was the
one who warned the Sumerian equivalent of Noah to build an ark to survive the Deluge because the Annunaki had grown irritated by the humans, who had
by now realized they were slaves and were behaving rebelliously.

In short, many Christians are trying to make themselves as ignorant as possible so that the Annunaki will come back and make them servants again.
That's not how these Christians see it, of course. That's just the origin of this whole twisted mentality. And there have been countless "holy"
individuals who have been more than happy to exploit this subservient mentality.

I'd like to put on my tinfoil hat for a moment to speculate the possibility that these "Annunaki" might have actually existed as beings who came
from the sky and engineered (remember, the word for "created" becomes "built" if you translate it properly) primitive humans as servants and left
out segments of DNA which would have supported a higher awareness (while adding many others, like those birds and fish, which I've heard are actually
in our DNA today, but I've not yet looked it up myself) but were thwarted by another group they had brought along for help (notably, Enki or "Ea")
and, following some major conflict that may have adversely affected the climate enough to melt some of the glaciers, were left without the technology
necessary to appear as "gods" and so were reduced to a cult. It's all silly talk, of course, but wouldn't it be amusing if the Christians were
worshiping their own interpretation of an extra terrestrial group who made their ancestors to be their slaves? It's absolutely ridiculous and I
don't believe a word of it, but isn't just the notion enough to bring a chuckle to you?

I say that your attempt to demonstrate that the Hebrew Creator God was derived from other cultures is a bit off the mark...

They were the original monotheists and, whilst there may be common elements between their story and others from the region (animal sacrifice, wrathful
deities etc), the differences and uniqueness of the Hebrew God and the Hebrew story are profound enough to nullify arguments of derivation.

Originally posted by makinho21
I'd like to start off with a quote from David Hume - with regards to the so-called immaculate conception
"What is more likely? That the whole natural order be suspended? Or that a Jewish minx should tell a lie?"
I think this basically sums up the moronic origins of Christianity - it has no weight or factual backing. It is clearly an amalgamation of earlier
polytheistic religions (specifically Egyptian worship of Ra) and the virgin birth is not something unique - in fact countless other older tales tell
of a similar occurrence. There is nothing original or memorable about Christianity, and it spreads immoral teachings, hidden like a coiled serpent,
within it's stupid book. Vicarious redemption? What kind of nonsense is this: www.youtube.com...
Hitchens' explains this disgusting concept very well. Who would dare claim to be able to wash away your sins - your sins that have been committed
against others. What selfish backwards thinking is this? Garbage is all I can say....absolute garbage

[edit on 24-7-2009 by makinho21]

This kind of diatribe is of little value to a discerning reader. It is filled with obvious prejudice and emotion.

In my opinion, true Christianity doesn't "spread immoral teachings" "hidden like a coiled serpent". 10 points for melodrama, though. As far as
ethical standards go, it has the same core as most of the other mainstream religions, and that is the universal Golden Rule. Can't go far wrong with
that. Additionally, it has formed the very benchmark and foundation for modern Western ethical standards. If misguided fundamentalists twist its
message to persecute gay people or abortionists, that's their problem. Doesn't mean that the underlying philosophy is necessarily at fault.

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.